Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2013 August 23

= August 23 =

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ Apple Users' Society of Melbourne
I have reorganised my article along the lines suggested by the reviewer on 20 August 2013. How do I now resubmit it?Gmdgmd (talk) 00:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Put at the top. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Foley Belsaw
Foley Belsaw was the best-known and probably the largest US manufacturer of sharpening equipment for most of the 20th century. However, it has always been privately owned so there is no financial or production data available as with a publically owned company. As far as I can determine, it has never been involved in anything controversial that would make the news. Consequently, I can't find any articles on the internet that demonstrate the notability of Foley Belsaw. However, Foley was a household name in the 1940s through the 1970s, since they made kitchen wares and advertised their sharpening equipment in magazines like "Popular Science" and "Popular Mechanics."

I have no connection with Foley Belsaw and did not consult them for this article. I have a lot of their equipment and publish a blog on the same http://foleyfiler.blogspot.com/ All my equipment was purchased used, so I am not a customer, either.

Could my article please be reviewed by someone knowledgeable about tools and machinery, antiques, or business? Thank you.

Mark Stansbury Wvamark (talk) 02:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately someone knowledgeable about tools and machinery, antiques, or business won't be able to ignore Wikipedia's guidelines and policies on verifiability and reliable sources either. The current sources don't suffice to write an article. However, sources need not be available online; print sources are acceptable as well. Maybe there are textbooks on industrial design that discuss their kitchen wares? And I doubt any company could manage to be a household name for decades without receiving any news coverage at all. Huon (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SHARE
Hello,

My review is declined because it has no reliable source. However, the source I used is reliable. It is a publication in a highly accepted rheumatology journal. There is no better source than this one. I really don't understand it.

Victor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veaboom (talk • contribs) 09:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, maybe User:Libby norman put a bad declining reason. What we need though is maybe another reference to establish notability. I tried a Google search, but it's a mess - there are too many organisations known as SHARE. Could you please place some more references in (must be about the subject, not trivial mentions)? Cheers, Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 09:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, as the reviewer I chose the WP:V decline reason because I didn't think one reference, however accepted within rheumatology circles, was enough to support a quite complex article. There was only one inline citation for the text, which is why I also chose verifiability. I agree with Insulam Simia that the article would benefit from at least one additional reference. You might also want to check that all statements within the text that might be challenged are supported by inline citations, also remembering to explain any acronyms or technical words that might baffle some readers. Adding appropriate Wikilinks (WP:LINK) might also assist with clarity. Hope that helps. Libby norman (talk) 10:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/C.B.S. Scientific Company, Inc.
[Draft removed.]

Jocelynscott (talk) 22:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I have moved the draft to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/C.B.S. Scientific Company, Inc., the preferred location for drafts awaiting review. However, I could not accept the draft because it didn't cite any reliable sources. Huon (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)